The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing
law.ed.ac.uk
law.ed.ac.uk
I think there are many more interesting implications of cheap-ass, automated, and decentralized manufacturing in general than just in IP. (3-d printing, downloadable and version controlled CNC instruction sets, parts supply chains on the internet, etc.) There will be lots more custom/ private work, there will be pseudo socialist challenges to the big guys who control manufacturing (in the same way that open source software is a bid to take control of software production), there will be revolutions in logistics, and we will see lots of interesting designs created outside the for-profit + mass distribution model.
There will be lots of lawyers, unfortunately.
I think we will also see the encoding of old designs first, just as Linux and BSD and GNU started as fairly traditional designs (and personally, if I were to download any car I could choose, it would be a 1977 Volvo 244).
And in 20 years, the best designs will be the open designs, just like the best software today is rapidly being defined by OSS, for many of the same reasons (i.e. no small minded MBA's getting involved in technical shit they will never be able to understand).
Amish technology will be really important in the process of shifting to open manufacturing (somewhat ironically) since their designs are complex but not crazy, and they appeal to the same DIY hippies as OSS does (I count myself in that bunch).
I also think an open source bicycle is the place to start, not a car, since it is simple but still challenging.
I think about this way too much, actually.
The bicycle I rode to work today has: - a frame made of heat-treated steel tubes brazed together - wheels made of extruded aluminium and stainless-steel wire - rubber tyres
... not to mention all the other bits and pieces; machined hubs, ball-bearings, etc etc.
I would be impressed at a 3-D printer that could produce any one of these things at a reasonable price, let alone all three. Small scale manufacturing of bicycle parts is confined to high-value niche areas.
I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of decentralised manufacturing here in .au, apart from offshoring, which I doubt has much to do with the sort of open manufacturing you seem to have in mind. I imagine things are the same in most Western economies, although I freely admit this is no more than speculation.
Well there's your problem. The point isn't to exactly recreate what we have today. The bike as you own it now is like it is because that's the easiest way to manufacture - rather than stamping it out of a block of steel, they take a couple of tubes and weld them together. If it's easier to 3d-print by making the whole thing in plastic, we'll have to engineer materials that allow this and still maintain enough function to be used like today's bike.
Innovation doesn't have to be constrained by today's standards. The Wright brothers didn't have to replicate the flapping wings of a bird, just building something that would fly was ok.
1. Smart server, dumb terminal
You install the software on the server and the terminal makes a connection to the server; the terminal is only an input/output machine.
2. Smart server, smart terminal
You can install the software on the terminal itself and run the software locally. (A desktop application) You can install the software on the server and the terminal makes a connection to the server; the terminal acting as an input/output machine. (A traditional web site with POST requests) You can also install software to the server and the terminal downloads a copy of the software to be run locally, downloading data from the server as needed. (A 'web 2.0' web site or an app downloaded from an app store.)
The possible two phases of manufacturing:
1. Production at the factory, Consumption at the home
The factory produces the goods and the goods are delivered to the home to be consumed.
2. Production at the factory, Production at the home
The factory produces the machines for producing consumables, and the machines are delivered to the home to produce whatever the home requires.
Computers were one of the first "systems" to become decentralized. I believe it is only a matter of time before other systems, such as factories, become decentralized too.
That said, I suspect DIYers, innovators, etc will find a way to make it work regardless, even if it means starting very simply with parts or things like crockery, glassware, basic construction, etc.
Both of those things are still pretty expensive. But We Have The Technology. It's only a matter of time until it gets cheaper.
Workers will control the means of production.
Robots will become the new proletariat.
Robots of the world, unite!
The predictions the article hints at especially in the conclusion are the predictions of Marx. Decentralized, low-cost, self-replicating, manufacturing robots are one of the most disruptive technologies are economy will ever face. The means of production will be in the hands of all individuals and the economy will evolve into a completely different state than today's service economy. An economic evolution from agrarian -> manufacturing -> service -> techno-marxism. Economies will naturally evolve to the point where producer and the worker are indistinguishable from one another.
(This is in no way shape or form a post supporting leninism\communism\maoism. There is no way to skip the prerequisite steps of economic evolution and technological development through prescriptive action)
Well, now you can. And so the same issues that have affected music and movies are now going to start making themselves felt elsewhere in the economy. If you're counting on design patents and incompatible shapes to raise the switching costs for your customers (Steve Jobs I'm looking in the direction of that stupid proprietary connector) you won't be able to count on maximising profits by preventing copycats. The most draconian anti-counterfeiting laws you can imagine will not be sufficient to keep people from building things they want.
Pet peeve, provoked by the usual suspects hyping random large numbers of allegedly counterfeit goods in news stories.
I agree that Open Source will ultimately play a pivotal role in this revolution and it will eat away at the status quo of 'things' much as it has been doing with software for last 20 years. This will inevitably clash with the old established businesses with the same predictable results, but this too shall pass. As the saying goes, science makes progress one funeral at a time and so does society. With any luck the next generations will look back on our current attitudes to IP and regard them as archaic and curious.
In many countries private use does not constitute copyright/trademark/patent infringement.
Furthermore there is no such exemption for trademark or patent infringement in any legal system that I'm familiar with, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that (it's not in my area of expertise either).
UK Patents Act 1977, Sec. 60 (5) (a): "An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if - (a) it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial;"
As to trademark infringement I agree that there is no explicit exemption for private use. But on the other hand I think it is not necessary - trademark infringement is putting trademarked goods on the market so it's not private by definition.
3D prototyping makes it a lot easier for people to build and improve weapons. You could, for example, print your own AR-15 lower receiver and buy the rest of the parts. Or print your own full-auto sear. Or print your own sound suppressor (silencer). Today, building those things requires specialized knowledge and expensive tools. That will change as 3D printing goes down in price and up in quality.
The advantages of this technology outweigh the downsides, but it's good to be aware of the downsides.
3d printed parts are relatively lo-fidelity and do not have the material strength due to their construction mechanism to do many things "normally" fabricated things do.